Allegations of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act require substantial evidence showing corrupt advantage or abuse of official position, which was not present in this case.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the first accused in the case C.C.No.11/2020 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode.

2. There are altogether seven accused in the case. The offences alleged against the accused in the case are punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Section

511 of 467 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. On 23.08.2014, the Dy.S.P, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Malappuram conducted a surprise check in the office of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Tirur and recovered unlaminated driving licences, 15 blank registration certificates and two security holograms from private persons who were said to be motor vehicles agents. A register containing secret codes and the names of various motor driving schools and individuals was seen kept in the office. Alleging that the officials in the office of the R.T.O had fraudulently and dishonestly allowed the motor vehicle agents to handle and possess unlaminated driving licences, blank registration certificates and security holograms and they committed criminal misconduct, a case was registered as V.C.No.6/2015 on 28.01.2015 by the VACB, Malappuram Unit.

4. After completing the investigation of the case, VACB filed final report against seven accused persons for the offences mentioned earlier. The learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offences.

5. As per Annexure-A2 charge-sheet, the prosecution case against the accused is as follows: The first accused was the Office Attendant and the second and the third accused were the Clerks in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Tirur. As public servants, they committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently allowing the accused Musthafa and Bhaskaran (A4 and A6) to handle and possess non-laminated driving licence and security holograms which were under their control, for the purpose of committing forgery. The accused Jalaludheen (A7), who was a Clerk in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Thirurangadi committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently allowing the accused Hamsa (A5) to handle and possess blank registration certificates which were under his control, for the purpose of committing forgery.

6. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing Annexure-A1 F.I.R and Annexure-A2 final report filed against the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. There is no allegation in the final report that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section

511 of 467 of the I.P.C. Such an offence is alleged only against accused 4 to 6. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. It is pertinent here to note that no offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C is alleged against the accused in the case.

9. Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act (as unamended) provides that, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he,-- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

10. Insofar as Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that the accused should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.

11. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioner has obtained